HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 170A-20017 0A
December 2, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, December
2, 1975, 7:30 p.m., County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner; Mr. Peter Easter; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Jack Rinehart;
Mr. Wilbur Tinsley. Absent was Mr. M. Clifton McClure. Ex-Officio member present was
Mr. Lloyd Wood, Board of Supervisors. Also present was Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County
Executive.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Action on the minutes of November 25, 1975, were deferred until December 9.
UP-75-10. John H. Bailey, Jr. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit kennels in the A-1 Agricul-
tural zone with a special use permit.
In the staff report, Mr. Tucker said that this should be commercial kennels, and
noted that kennels were permitted by right only in the M-1 zone. Mr. Tucker said that
the staff is also recommending that the definition under section 16-48 be changed to
Commercial Kennel.
Mr. Barksdale said that there seems to be a fine line in what is permitted by right
%✓ and by special permit in the A-1 zone.
Mr. Tucker said that this will not prevent people from breeding their own dogs, but
it is to take care of kennels when they are a primary use for the land.
Mr. Easter urged that the restrictions be as tight as possible to avoid future pro-
blems for both the County and the applicant.
Mr. John Bailey, applicant, said that he had moved here because of the geographical
location to numerous dog shows. He said that his entire livelihood is made from showing
his and other people's dogs. His business is not breeding and selling dogs, though.
He said that this particular kennel will be for about twenty dogs.
Mr. Carr told the applicant and the public that this particular public hearing is to
address UP-75-10 and not the request for a special permit for one particular kennel. He
noted that commercial kennels by special permit are recommended by the proposed zoning
ordinance. Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Graves moved the amendment to permit commercial kennels in the A-1 zone with
a special permit being adopted. She stated that she did wish to address kennels by
right in the M-1 zone at a later date.
Discussion:
Mr. Easter asked if two acres is enough acreage for protection in more residential
areas.
170B
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the special permit will enable the Country to control
the kennels.
Mr. Tucker agreed with Mr. Gloeckner.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
A proposed amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to include "Article 18
Scenic Highways and Byways." This proposed amendment would place certain restrictions
on designated scenic highways and byways.
The Commission unanimously agreed to defer action on this request until a work session
had been held on the amendment.
A proposed amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to include "Article 19
Residential Planned Neighborhood." This proposed amendment would provide for variety
and flexibility in the residential districts.
The Commission unanimously agreed to defer action on this request until a work session
had been held on the amendment.
A proposed amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to include "Article 20
Planned Unit Development," and repeal sections 2-1-25(23) and 2-7 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance. This proposed amendment is provided to replace the existing
Planned Communities section and provide more variety and flexibility in the residen-
tial districts.
The Commission unanimously agreed to defer action on this request until a work
session had been held on the amendment.
SP-531. John H. Bailey, Jr. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to locate a kennel on 3.0 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on
the west side of Route 758 near the Nelson County line. County Tax Map 69, Parcel
27, White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Since there was no public comment, Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bailey passed out to the Commission a copy of the site plan for the property,
showing a 20' right-of-way.
Mrs. Graves asked how far the well is from the dog runs.
Mr. Bailey told her it was 142 feet.
Mrs. Craddock asked if parking has been addressed.
Mr. Bailey told her that an area 60 feet x 20 feet is allotted for parking.
Mr. Easter said that since runs are shown under the house, they should be addressd
at this time.
170C
ten (10)
Mr. Tucker said that these/additional runs could be addressed at this time.
Mr. Easter suggested review in two years, and then each additional five years.
Mr. Bailey told Mr. Rinehart that the proposed building structure is 16' x 42'.
Mrs. Graves asked that the special use permit be tied to the applicant.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the special use permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval of all state and local agencies;
2. Maintain a minimum of 100 foot tree buffer around the property;
3. Animals to be kept in enclosed runs;
4. Signing to be limited to 4 square feet;
5. Zoning staff's review in two years, and this special use permit shall be reviewed
every five (5) years thereafter by the zoning staff. It shall be brought back to
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for reconsideration if deemed
necessary;
6. This special permit is conditioned upon the approval of the amendment for commercial
kennels in the A-1 zone by the Board of Supervisors;
7. This special permit is non -transferable;
8. Kennel is limited to thirty (30) runs.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mrs. Craddock stated that she would support the motion, since the property is so
isolated.
The vote was 8-0 in favor of the motion.
SP-532. Benjamin R. Meadows has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to locate a mobile home on 116.7 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is described
as County Tax Map 84, Parcel 54, White Hall and Samuel Miller Magisterial Districts.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that because of the series of gates leading
to the property, the staff had not viewed the site, since they did not want to trespass
on private property.
Mr. Meadows, applicant, said that the trailer will not be near Mr. Carpenter's pro-
perty. He said that Mr. Bob Merrill has given him permission to bring the mobile home
across his property. He has secured a right-of-way from his brother-in-law.
Mr. Meadows told Mrs. Craddock that the mobile home will be approximately two miles
from the Carpenter property, and cannot be viewed from his property.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval by all state and local agencies;
2. Minimum setback from access right-of-way of 100 feet;
3. Minimum setback of 25 feet from side property lines and 35 feet from rear property
lines;
4. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile home;
,1
170D
5. This mobile home cannot be rented under any circumstances;
6. This permit is non -transferable;
7. Screening, if any, determined by the Zoning Staff;
8. Time limit of five (5) years.
There was no discussion on the motion.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-533. Patricia Carlton has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to locate a general store on 91 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated
of the north side of Route 664, about 4 mile west of its intersection with Route
776. County Tax Map 18, Parcel 5, White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, pointing out that the general store in question is
already in existence and has been for many years. It has not, however, been in operation
for the past two years thus preventing its reopening as a non -conforming use.
Mrs. Graves asked if the special permit will include the use of gas pumps.
Mr. Tucker said that they will be in use.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval of the special use permit subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. Approval by appropriate state and local agencies;
2. Planting plan approved by the planning staff;
3. Any addition to the country store will require an additional special use permit.
There was no discussion on the motion.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-534. Willoughby Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super-
visors to locate a Planned Community on 141.415 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural (Planned
Community). Property is situated on the east side of Route 631 (5th Street Extended).
County Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4C, 4C-1, and County Tax Map 76M(2),
Parcels 5A, 5B, 5B(1), 6B, and 7. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving the room.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that the staff was recommending deferral in
order to further investigate the recommendations made by the Virginia Department of High-
ways and Transportation and other information regarding sewer facilities. He said, however,
that Mr. Bob Leighton representing the applicant, wished to present information regarding
the PUD at this meeting.
Mr. Humphr6.y noted that the designers of the project have given the staff all the in-
formation that had been requested and that it is one of the best plans that has come before
the county. He said that the bulk of the industrial land has been eliminated in this pro-
ject as compared to the originally approved special use permit. He pointed out to the
commission that this is an amendment to the original special use permit.
Mr. Leighton passed out analysis drawings and economic studies of the housing needs
of Albemarle County. He located the site for the Planning Commission. Through a series
170E
of maps, he showed the existing conditions (such as roads, etc.) on the property. He
noted the -foliage on the property and explained the slope study to the Commission, noting
that the 20% slope is maximum that can be used for building sites. He took a detailed look
at the five soil types on the property, explaining that the land should tell what the pro-
ject should be like. He pointed out the climate of the site through the map showing
wind currents, pointing out the cold air flow. Other points of illustration were existing
drainage patterns, ridge lines. Mr. Leighton used a summary analysis map to point out
the buildable land on the site, pointing out that this is approximately half of the acreage.
This he applied to the ERA report. He stated that the market study had shown a demand
for low -middle income housing. Mr. Leighton further pointed out the location on roads,
industry, playfields, parking, ideas for incorporating the county -wide bike survey, etc.
Mrs. Craddock said that she was impressed with the presentation.
Mr. Leighton said that the original plan had been to use all land that was not
buildable for recreation facilities, but that did not seem to be possible.
Mr. Easter asked if the impact of this project was approximately one-half of the
original's proposal why the Commission could not act.
Mr. Humphrey said that the staff wished to see a general master plan and have a care-
ful review of material submitted by the Virginia Department of Highways and the Education
Department of Albemarle County. He said conditions for final approval needed to be fi-
nalized.
Mr. Tinsley asked if the entrance onto I-64 had been worked out.
Mr. Tucke said that this entrance is no longer part of the proposal, so it presents
no problems.
Mr. Carr said that that property is now owned by other parties.
Mrs. Craddock asked if the Commission will know the extent of the active and passive
play lots.
Mr. Humphrey said that the Commission would have this information at a later date.
Mr. Rinehart asked if the Homeowners' Agreements have been finalized.
Mr. Humphrey said this is being worked on now and would be part of the site plan
process.
Mr. Rinehart moved action be deferred on this until all information could be further
reviewed.
Discussion:
Mr. Carr commended the work that had been done thus far on the project.
Mrs. Craddock asked for positive statements regarding water and sewer for the project.
Mrs. Graves expressed a desire for School Board input on the projected impact
on schools in this area.
err' Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion for deferral; it passed by a vote of 7-0.
17 OF
Mr. Gloeckner returned to the meeting.
SP-536. Shelter Associates have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervis
to locate a planing mill on 0.35+ acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated
at the intersection of Route 601 and 665 in Free Union. Property is further described
as County Tax Map 29, Parcel 41E, White Hall Magisterial District.
In the staff report Mr. Tucker noted that the Zoning Administrator had directed the
applicant that a planing mill is the category under which he needed to apply for a special
use permit. Mr. Tucker pointed out that there is a small subdivision near this property.
Mr. Cecil Maupin, another adjacent owner, had come to the Planning Office and stated that
he has no objection to the applicant's proposal.
Mr. Chris Halstead, applicant, said that he is a small general contractor, and that
any woodworking that would be done here will be on a small scale. He said that he
likened his request to a small cabinet shop or woodworking shop rather than a planing mill.
The storage shop would serve as a sound buffer. Mr. Halstead said that he has spoken
to all his neighbors, and they have no objection. He said that the building is in the pro-
cess of being restored to its original shape and that his operation will not disturb anyone.
He said that he has received no negative response to his request.
Mr. Bud Trickle, representing the applicant as legal counsel, stated that the applicant
had applied for the permit with the understanding that this seemed to be the only way he
could apply (as interpreted by the Zoning Adminstrator). He suggested the Commission consi-
der the use as even a home workshop, since there would probably be no more equipment in
the shop than one would have in a home workshop. He said that the applicant wishes to limit
the use to that particular piece of property, and asked the Planning Commission to appro—,
the request.
There was a discussion on whether special permit should travel with the applicant or
be transferable to a purchaser of the business. It was the consensus of the Commission that
it could be transferred to another owner.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that there have been applications for cabinet shops before.
Mr. Tucker stated that this is similar to the application submitted by Stockton Creek,
who had applied under the category "Craft Shop."
Mr. Barksdale asked if it can be considered as a craft shop.
Mr. Tucker explained that this can be done in two ways - by re -advertising or through
conditions placed on the special permit.
Mr. Easter asked if they had operated in the area previously.
Mr. Halstead told him through a post office box.
Mrs. Craddock asked if the building will be rented, and how many employees will be
working there.
Mr. Halstead told her that the building will be rented and that there will be a maximum
of four employees involved within the shop at one time.
Mr. Halstead also told Mr. Easter that there will not be any heavy equipment store'
outside. He also said that there will not be retail sales from the site later on.
170G
Mr. Carr asked what would be built in the shop.
Mr. Halstead said that household items such as doors, beds, furniture - nothing that
would not fit in a household setting.
Mr. Carr asked if all this would be done within the building as well as storing.
Mr. Halstead said"yes."
Mr. Halstead said that fire protection had been addressed, but that the Fire Marshal
had made no definite requirements until the definite use has been established.
Mr. Tinsley stated that it seemed like a manufacturing corporation.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval for the special use permit for a custon cabinet shop sub-
ject to the following conditions:
1. Approval by all state and local agencies, including the building inspection and Fire
Marshal approval;
2. All work to take place within the main structure and accessory sheds;
3. No outside storage of materials;
4. Employees working in the building to be limited to five (5) full-time employees;
5. Retail sales to be brought back to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr asked whose name the special use permit would be issued in.
Mrs. Craddock said "Shelter Associates."
Mr. Payne explained that if one of the partners leaves a partnership, it is automati-
cally dissolved.
Mrs. Graves said that she could not support the motion.
The vote was 7-1, with Mrs. Graves voting "no."
The Commission took a three minute recess.
The meeting resumed. All members present at the beginning of the meeting were present.
Mr. Carr spoke to the members of the Commission regarding the next item of business
on the agenda. He said that there were those present at the meeting who wished to speak
to deferring action on the mattter. He said that there were others who thought the Com-
mission should proceed and listen to the merits of the request. He asked the County Attor-
ney's advice on this matter.
Mr. Payne said that a deferral for purposes of evaluating information is perfectly
proper. He noted that the staff had informed him that there are questions regarding sewer
availability, schools, roads, and items that he does not specifically know about that
might be considered in moving for deferral. He said that deferral for a reasonable period
under those circumstances in order that the staff can properly review the information would
be proper. He said that if the Planning Commission is talking about merely deferring it as
17 0H
some parties have suggested, as a sort of holding action (for example, in order that the
newly elected Board can review it rather than the existing Board) would not be proper.
He said that this application should be treated substantially as the Planning Commis-
sion would treat any other application. The application should be considered on its Vigo
merits.
Mr. Puryear asked if he could speak to this on behalf of Mr. Fleming.
Mr. Carr told Mr. Puryear that he would have the opportunity to speak to this if
others have the opportunity. At this point, Mr. Carr asked Mr. Payne if there is any
directive from the court.
Mr. Payne told the Commission that there are two court proceedings regarding the
previous proposal for this particular property at a much higher density. He said that
there has been no further action in the state court that he is aware of, just at the
federal court level. He stated that this application, SP-537, is the compromise discussed
at the federal court level. He said that if this application is approved by the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County the case will be dismissed. He
said that approval would be a settlement out of court's hands. He stated that the
court did indicate that it would endorse this sort of settlement. He stated further that
the court endorses the concept of settlement without knowing the merits of the case. He
said that there has not been any directive that the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors approved this request. Mr. Payne said that this must be considered as new
business, and must be considered on its own merit. The Planning Commission is free to
exercise good judgement in this case.
Mr. Carr asked the members of the Commission if there were any questions they wished
to direct to Mr. Payne.
They had no questions.
SP-537. James N. Fleming, Flamenco Enterprises, Inc., and Four Seasons West Limited
Partnership have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a
Planned Community on 128.06 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on
the west side of Route 743 (Hydraulic .Road). County Tax Map 44, Parcel 35B, and
County Tax Map 45, Parcels 8, 8A, 12, 13, and 14, 17, 18, 19, or parts thereof. Jack
Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gaire the staff report, stating that there might be a need for a school site
reservation. He stated that the Planning Department had only that day received information
from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation regarding this special permit;
the Planning Department has not had sufficient time to review this yet.
Mr. Edgar F. Puryear, Jr., attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant is
here in the spirit of compromise. He reminded the Commission that the original proposal
had been for six dwelling units per acre, and that the application had been changed in
line with the Comprehensive Plan to almost 2.5 dwelling units per acre. He said that
the two basic differences are that it is a better plan, since the staff recommends approval
subject to a list of conditions and that it is _good that there are more stringent erosion
control ordinances in the county. He said that the Highway Department had originally
indicated that there would be no problem with Route 743 regarding the traffic. He said
that the plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that there are densities
in the area from six to thirty dwelling units per acre. He stated that the proposal
is also consistent with the water and sewer situations in the area. He stated that *400
the applicant is willing to live with a 2-acre commercial area rather than the 1-acre
recommended by the staff, though he thought the staff's comment regarding this is uncon-
170I
stitutional. He felt the 100 foot strip buffer adjacent to Shack Mountain is stiff, though
he felt it, too, could be compromised.
Mr. Steve Phillips, the Engineer for the project, said that the drainage plan has
not been submitted. He said that the sedimentation basin can be built as it was on the
original proposal, only smaller. Some dwelling units will have to be relocated. All sur-
face drainage will be contained in some sort of conduit.
Mr. Josepph Richmond, executor of the Greer Estate, stated that the 80 acres adjacent
to this and next to the reservoir has been sold in the last two weeks to Nature Conservancy.
He stated that a binding contract has been written for $175,000 and that it is not con-
tingent on this special use permit.
He urged the Commission to defer action on this proposal until they had time to
respond as adjacent property owners. He also recommended notifying the heirs of Claire
Burton, who died only six months ago. He suggested that a delay would harm no one.
Mr. David Wood, representing Nature Conservancy, asked for a 30-60 day deferral. Mr.
Wood briefly explained the group he represented, stated that they own acreage covering
approximately 1500 projects, with the objective of maintaining land in its natural state
for the future. The group is supported by donoations or by gifts of land, which is tax
deductible. He cited one place where they own 33,000 acres between Cape Charles and
the Maryland border. He suggested that the applicant for this project might at least re-
design the plan so that the least dense acreage is adjacent to the eighty acres just pur-
chased by Nature Conservancy.
Mr. Jim Murray, representing Mr. and Mrs. Bedford Moore of Shack Mountain, asked
deferral on the basis of sewer availability, deferral until the $149,000 study on the
reservoir is completed, and until the staff has had time to consider the report from the
Highway Department. He stated that the Moore's have two major concerns over this property:
its effect on the reservoir and its effect on their residence Shack Mountain, which has
historical significance. He suggested redrafting the entire proposal. He pointed out
that this is a high density use in the heart of a nature preserve. He stated that there
should be an open space easement all along the property adjoining Shack Mountain, which
is at least 213 mile. Mr. Murray further pointed out the historical and architectural
significance of Shack Mountain, stating that it is one of the most important buildings in
the county. He asked that the site be viewed to establish here and the amount of buffer
needed. He suggested that the property might even be sold in 2-acre 1ots,and a sizeable
profit would still be realized by the applicant.
Mr. Ken Haviland, President of Citizens for Albemarle, read a resolution adopted by
the group, suggesting that perhaps the county should view what the city and county are
trying to do in this area. (see attached).
Mr. Clinton Parker, stated that he is an expert on water pollution, stated that few
houses could be placed there, if done so judiciously. He said that construction on more
than 20% slope should be avoided. He said that less than one-fourth of the land there drain:
to the pond, that it drains to Ivy Creek, which runs directly into the reservoir.
Mr. Phillips explained the drainage to Mr. Parker and members of the Commission.
Mrs. Betty Scott, representing the League of Women Voters, read a statement urging
deferral until the study on the reservoir could be completed.
Mr. John Longeley, cited the editorial in the Daily Progress regarding this proposal
and asked that it be made a part of the record (see attached).
170J
Mr. Richard Collins, a member of the University Planning Faculty, stated that the
decrease in density is better, though the plan is still incomplete. He stated his
concern on the basis of the already dangerous situation that the water supplies of the
city and county are in. VVIOV `%.,
Mrs. Craw, stated that the city owns about forty acres adjacent to the property just
purchased by Nature Conservancy. She stated that this 120 acres is the nucleus of what
could be a very beautiful park that would be welcomed by all citizens.
Mrs. Kathy Tompkins, representing the Woodbrook Homeowners Association, stated that
she concurs with others who have already spoken and that this association feels that
action at this time would be premature.
Mr. Puryear said that he had wished to avoid this, but that he had to point out that
when Wendell Wood's project on the reservoir had come before the Commission at an earlier
date, that such people as David Wood, Joseph Richmond, and Mr. Bedford Moore had not
appeared in opposition. He suggested that the reason for this was that the applicant
was white and not black, as the applicant for SP-537 is.
Mr. Moore asked if personal attacks are allowed.
Mr. Carr told the public that this situation is not necessary to the functioning of
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Puryear then asked where conservation stopped. He reminded the Commission that
his property does not abut the reservoir. He noted that the erosion ordinance has to be
complied with and that the city must not be upset regarding the gas lines or it would have
appeared in opposition. He stated that some problems are for the applicant. He asked for
a vote by the Commission.
Mr. Easter asked what had been expressed as acceptable as density for the property
when the original proposal was presented.
Mr. Tucker stated that the main issue with the original proposal had been density,
and that some had expressed that they would be more agreeable to density as recommended
by the Comprehensive Plan, and some had stated that they were opposed to the entire
project due to its proximity to the reservoir.
Mr. Easter then asked if there are major problems with the plan that is currently
before the Commission.
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff is not in complete agreement with the plan and that
the main problem is with the slopes.
Mr. Gloeckner asked the number of units involved with the slope problems.
Mr. Tucker said that there are a lot.
Mr. Easter asked for a rough estimate.
Mr. Tucker said "25 to 30 dwelling units."
Mr. Humphrey stated that today's PUD requirement is a general land use plan, general
road layout, and a general utility plan. As far as submittal is concerned, this is
adequate; revisions could be accomplished, that re -design at this time is not neces-
sary.
z�
Ws ng ne
L -9s Not Be Hasly'?
et
r-i n disposing of this matter. Further, it raises, a
,oftg, the 10 items on the Albemarle Planning
asonable suspicion it is being,dope in o to.
isgion's agenda for tonight's meeting will be a
test the present board of supervisors an o u
or a special use permit dealing with dwelling
it.,- ensity on property, adjacent to the vaDec
Ri nna
on the request before its term expires on
rvoir. generally conceded that while. the prae
so might newly
ec
look with favor on he request, the
J iAigording to information received by The Daily
#,ro�,,this permit will change existing density re- stituted board would-be, less inclined, to do so,,
wirementS,to permit a density of two and one - half Indeed, the future of the reservoir,
its; per acre. It will, in effect, give the green light to principle issues in the November ball'otin
fear it might be further damaged major housing development along the re
servoir by
sin it it is.approved by the Board,of Supervisors. development was one of the factors in',",
ThO -
.' wisdom of permitting such a development has the new members to theboard.
Rightly or wrongly, rushing this,, A
ng, . n at issue, and an extensive study is present- special use
q;rl' would through in the waning hours of, board'sl
ly 100", ay to determine whether or not it,
`--ift
dontribute to the deterioration of the reservoir: a distinctly unpleasant aroma,'�,&Ut it, a4,iit
likely to contribute significano'"►This s' < 11
to the
study has not been completed, and thus the im-
citizens' confidenc6 in the integrity of the
of the� development and its effect on the water
p
is unknown. In the light of this, action on the volved.
In short, it would be a serious mistakq:WA
y
b the, Planning Commission would appear to
"ature in the extreme. ning Commission to act affirmatively ,00-tho..
0 VOP more disturbing is information that if the this evening, and it would be an even WOMM',
p erfor the,"lame duck'.' board to give its approval to,
mit. is approved by the planners, it will be taken
by the Supervisors at their meeting on Dec. 10. We matter on Dec. `10.
te advised by the county Planning and Zoning Office The citizens of Albemarle have clearly indicat
at a staff -report on the request has already been their vote on Nov. 4 they want this matter exa
Tarnished to the Site Plan 1* Technical Review Copi- by the :new governing body. Their wishes shoo
iittee thus I gr n, by the respecte4,�_
pa4i i for rapid action`
n tMY, e"Mt, respect
Indeed, it is possible that the ad ould. be with,
gthe rail
ward of Supervisors. *im
view cbmmittee will-4& on the proposals at its Dec. to de4lopments airing the reservoir basin until the,
meeting 41though this is not essential to the
study of the matter now in progress has been com-
A, its, reso
C pLeted or Us are, available to the, Planning
-it's
S
All .,this .W'the ijowraxi6 of O!Wrely undue haste COMIMPMA "d the ,vpwWsors.
M
RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT "EVERGREEN"
Adopted by the Board of Directors of Citizens for Albemarle
November 13, 1975
In continuation of our long-standing efforts to ensure protection for
the South Fork Reservoir by limiting adjacent development, be it resolved
that Citizens for Albemarle is opposed to granting a special permit for
the Planned Unit Development Evergreen or any such project because of the
probable detrimental effects of high density development on the nearby
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. We are opposed to any increased development
that would create the possibility of run-off to the reservoir carrying
pollutants such as sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and other chemical
substances which would be carried downstream to the intake of the community
water supply. Until the completion of the reservoir study in process under
the direction of the Rivanna Water Authority, all development around the
reservoir should be kept to a minimum to prevent any possibility of
irreparable damage to this vital water resource.
Submitted to Albemarle County Planning; Commission
December 2, 1975
John Kenneth Haviland
President, Citizens for Albemarle
170M
Mr. Easter asked if there is enough land with 25% slope that would necessitate the
entire plan being re -worked.
Mr. Humphrey said that it is possible that a change in the number of housing types
might be necessary, in order that there might be a compact approach.
Mr. Rinehart said that the County did not have the advantage of development by stages.
He said that he wished to have a basic conpect of why the various uses were applied to
the land.
Mr. Phillips stated that the plan submitted here is a feasibility of accomplishment.
He said that this is a preliminary plan.
Mr. Carr asked if the commercial area could be controlled.
Mr. Humphrey said that it is a privilege to have commercial zoning to serve residents
in a PUD that does not have commercial zoning assigned to the property.
Mr. Puryear said that the applicant can live with 2-acres of commercial zoning.
Mrs. Craddock asked that the sewer capacity and school capacity be spoken to.
Mr. Humphrey pointed out the logical place for a school site reservation if necessary.
Mrs. Graves asked for the location for the channeling of storm water.
Mr. Phillips pointed out this to her on the map.
Mrs. Graves moved deferral until the necessary information could be submitted by
the applicant and until the staff could review input from the school system, and until
the sewer availability could be addressed. This motion was made as provided for in Section
2-7-3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Puryear said that the applicant would rather have a denial then a deferral.
Mrs.Craddock seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Easter said that he could not support the motion, though he felt Nature Conservancy
should have time for input as an adjacent property owner. The legal obligation has been
fulfilled and the applicant has a right to an answer.
Mrs. Craddock felt the plan to be incomplete with many omissions.
Mrs. Graves said that no other PUD had received action at its first public hearing.
Mr. Carr stated that he felt the following were reasons for deferring action.
1. Preliminary plan is insufficient - general master plan should be redesigned;
2. Commercial area as far as size and location should be spelled out;
3. Input from Education Department is necessary;
4. More knowledge is needed on the common area with reference to Homeowners' Agreement;
5. More information regarding the pond and its dam are needed;
6. More engineering information is needed (regarding sediment basin plans);
170N
7. Lot layout so as not to encroach on slopes of more than 25% is needed;
8. Staff review of Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation input is needed;
9. Complete review by the Engineering Department regarding storm water and utilities;
10. Evidence that the applicant has considered the interim ordinance regarding the
protection of the Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. Barksdale said that a definite date for another public hearing should be given
to the applicant.
Mr. Puryear again asked for the courtesy of action, even if denial, in irder that the
request can move on to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Gloeckner called for the question.
The vote for the motion to defer carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mr. Easter voting
against the motion.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
,,;I,
Secr tart', Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
171
December 3, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a special work session on
December 3, 1975, 4:00 p.m., County office Building, Third Floor, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mr. Peter Easter; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley;
Mr. Jack Rinehart; and Mr. Roy Barksdale. Absent was Mr. Clifton McClure,
Vice -Chairman, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
order.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
Approval of minutes:
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of all the above sets of minutes subject to
Mrs. Graves' corrections and Mr. Humphrey's review:
February 18, 1975
March 31, 1975
April 16, 1975
April 22, 1975
May 7, 1975
May 12, 1975
May 15, 1975
June 16, 1975
June 30, 1975
July 1, 1975
July 8, 1975
July 15, 1975
August 5, 1975
August 12, 1975
August 19, 1975
August 26, 1975
September 2, 1975
September 9, 1975
September 16, 1975
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
Bike Trail Study:
Mr. Humphrey asked that after the Planning Commission had input regarding
this, that they pass a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He
suggested this be advertised for public hearing in early 1976. He also stated
that the staff wished the Commission to consider a series of amendments and additions
to the site plan and subdivision ordinances. Mr. Humphrey explained that these
additions and amendments would strengthen the ordinances.,
Mr. Humphrev then introduced to the Commission Donna Rubinoff and Ann Paul,
members of the staff who composed the study.
Donna Rubinoff explained the maps of suggested bike trails to the Commission.
These maps were the basis for the entire plan. She stated that as well as the
physical plan, the importance of making the public aware of and educating them to,
bike safety rules is stressed in the overall plan. The presentation also included
exact locations for the recommended bike trails. She noted that topography,
traffic counts, drainage systems, road widths, speed limits, interviews, etc.,
were considered in the preparation.
Ann Paul, who assisted in the Bike Trail. Study, explained the "User Survey".
An analysis of this survey, handed out to 4,200 people, pointed out that there
would be many more bicyclists if conditions in the County were safer. The survey,
she said, was concentrated in the Urban Area. The survey also revealed that people
interested in cycling were interested not only in touring and recreational purposes,
but were also interested in bicycles for commuting to work, to school, etc.
In choosing the various routes, the interns said that they had tried to choose
routes which were the most level.
( Mrs. Graves entered the meeting. )
Ann Paul explained the three types of bicycle routes:
1. Bicycle trail - a separate trail or path which is generally for, the exclusive use
of bicycles.
2. Shared roadway - a roadwa-,., which is officially designated and marked as a bicycle
route, but also is open to motor vehicle travel.
3. Bicycle lane - a portion of a roadway which has been designated generally for
the exclusive use of bicycles,, The bicyclist would be in a separate land but
there would be no physical barrier between the bicyclist and the motorist.
The bike survey suggested widening some county roads.
Mr. Carr asked if there was money available from the Highway Department to do this.
Miss Rubinoff stated that there was not.
Mr. Carr asked if the Highway Department has recognized the need for this and is
therefore prepared to cooperate when, and if, funds are available.
Miss Rubinoff stated that they have recognized the need. She further stated
that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has a number of requirements
that must be first fulfilled before funding can be secured, and one of these prerequisites
is a plan.
Mr. Tucker stated that this was the first step to adopting the plan.
( Mr. Easter entered the meeting, )
Mr. Barksdale asked who would be responsible for the road maintenance of
roads not in the state system.
Miss Rubinoff said that this would be the county's responsibility.
Mr. Humphrey said that another idea would be for the Homeowners to maintain
the trails in their given development.
Mr. Carr said that due to the increase in the cost of gasoline, such
methods of travel as bicycles would become very important.
Mrs. Craddock moved to pass a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to include the Bikeway Plan and to hold a public hearing after the first of the
year.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was 7-1,
with Mr. Easter voting "no" due to the anticipated cost.
Five Acre zoning:
Mr. Gloeckner stated that a 5-acre zone is needed in order that there can
be some sort of trade-off of properties when applications are submitted for one -
acre development. This would enable the County to ask for 5-acre zoning along
road fronts, and would still permit the developer to satisfy his needs. He
cited the example that there is no development of any size in the urban area south-
east of town. This would be a good place to allow people to start little communities
without going through high costs of PUD's and permit little subdivisions away
from the highway. The 5-acre zoning on the front would allow for only a few entrances
onto the state road.
Mr. Rinehart pointed out that the Planning Commission has been directed to
allow no development of less than 1� acres without individual water and sewer.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he was referring to one acre with on utility;
one acre provides three locations for a septic field. This would be one option
that is not now available. He felt this was one way to get the five -acre zone
without waiting for the proposed ordinance to be passed.
Mr. Carr agreed, noting that this could be. support for smaller lots in the
County. Mr. Carr pointed out that the current economic situation is going to
have a serious impact on Albemarle County5's ability to sell bonds and build
sewage lines. This will increase the demand for private sewer systems.
Mrs. Graves felt this sort of voluntary zone would conflict with the
voluntary 10-acre zone which is part of the proposed zoning ordinance.
Mr. Rinehart feared that this five -acre zoning would be used for land
that is already in the flood plain ( which is already unusable ). He urged
writing a very tight statement of intent regarding this, making the five -acre
zone a buffer to state roads and protected conservation areas, where there are
steep slopes and flood plains.
Mr. Humphrey said he had trouble with the merits of the 5-acre zoning
as opposed to the cluster concept -or RPN zone. A subdivision plat will still be
required; and a slope analysis will still be needed to determine the proper
place for this zone.
Mr. Payne explained to the Commission that the Homeowner's Association
would own the greenspace. It would be possible to have a sewage easement for
V\
\ for each lot bordering the common area.
Mr. Gloeckner. pointed out that in a straight forward subdivision, there
is no red tape ( though there is a homeowner's association ) and owners don't
have to worry about taxes on commonly owned greenspace.
Mr. Payne said that taxes are sometimes lower in a cluster development
since the open space is often unbuildable. He further noted that this sort
of zoning is just another agricultural zone with a five -acre minimum - and
he felt this could open the way for spot zoning.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the bases for determination are slope and
soil analyses.
No decision was made on the 5-acre zone.
Comprehensive Plan:
Mr. Humphrey told the Planning Commission that he would be appearing before
the Board of Supervisors the following day to discuss the Comprehensive Plan. He
would be talking about the following:
1. Aspects of existing Comprehensive Plan which have had major opposition;
2. Aspects which the passage of time indicates may be unrealistic.
He said that he had listed some areas from the past five years which have
drawn opposition:
1. Ivy cluster - too much population planned for the area;
2. Keswick - too much population planned due to lack of utilities;
3. General concern over the cluster concept.
Mr. Humphrey then asked for Planning Commission input on areas that they
would like for him to present to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Easter suggested recognizing commercial land in the Plan rather than
ignoring it.
Mr. Humphrey also state that the population projections needed considerable
consideration.
He said that he was going to suggest to the Board that they review the back-
ground leading up to the development of the existing plan. Such items as reorganization
of economic situation, existing land use, school projections and the number of
schools that would be required, etc., should be considered.
Mr. Humphrey also stated his concern about the proper time for citizen
:input when the Comprehensive Plan was being drawn up. He noted that the County
Attorney had suggest some public input before the public hearing level. One
possibility for citizen input was in each magisterial district.. Mr. Humphrey
stressed that ALL SEGMENTS of the population needed to have input.
Mr. Carr said that a certain amount of citizen input is highly desirable,
but the real work on the master plan would have to be accomplished by people
qualified to do this sort of work.
/7
Mr. Gloeckner said that he felt the plan should be done primarily by
the planning staff, which are the experts.
Mr. Rinehart suggested that the true planning process is too involved
to throw open to the general public.
Mr. Carr said there are two options for preparing the comprehensive
plan: either the staff prepares it or a consultant is employed to prepare it.
Mr. Easter expressed the desire that the staff does the work, and yet
periodically informs the Planning Commission of its progress and ideas incorporated
into the plan in order that general philosophy of the Commission is reflected
in the Plan when it is presented to the public and the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Carr said that he felt the Planning Commission would like the
staff to guide a consultant, if it ends up that a consultant is employed.
Mr. Rinehart said that perhaps the existing master plan can be amended.
Mr. Humphrey said everything must be spelled out since most people take
the Comprehensive Plan at face value. He said that the original objectives
of the existing plan had to be modified, due to what has happened in the six
years since the data was collected.
Since Mr. Humphrey felt he had received input from the Commission to
pass on the the Board of Supervisors when he reviewed the options for Comprehensive
Plan review, this portion of the meeting was ended.
Budget:
Mr. Humphrey briefly informed the Planning Commission of the work he
was doing regarding the Planning Department budget for the coming fiscal year.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Secretary
on
N
December 9, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on December 9, 1975,
7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Peter Easter;
Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio. Absent was Mr. Clifton McClure.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Approval of minutes:
Mrs. Craddock moved approval of the minutes of November 25, 1975, subject to her
clerical corrections. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Minutes of December 2, 1975:
Mr. Barksdale made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Craddock, that action on these minutes
be deferred until a later date. The motion carried unanimously.
Minutes of December 3, 1975:
Mr. Rinehart moved action be deferred until a later date. The motion, seconded
by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
SP-534. Willoughby Corporation - request for a PUD:
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that this request had been deferred in order that
there could be preliminary approval by the Engineering Department. He stated that this
had been secured, but that final approval was pending a submittal of the profiles of the
utility lines. Mr. Tucker stated that this would come at the site plan stage. He stated
that another reason for deferral of action was in order that the School Board of the Count,
could have input regarding the reservation of a school site that was part of the original
Willoughby proposal. He stated that the School Board does feel that there is sufficient
land adjacent to that owned by Willoughby to require a reservation on the Willoughby site.
The School Board felt the proper location for a school would be further south. He stated
that even though it is not possible at this time, the school would prefer funds on a pro-
rata basis - this cannot be a requirement at this time, though.
(Mr. Easter arrived at the meeting).
Mr. Tucker further stated that another reason for deferral had been to secure input
from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation - which has not yet been
received by the Planning Department. Approval of the request would have to be subject
to their approval.
Mr. Tucker also read the staff comments on the project to the Commission that are
a part of the staff report.
Mrs.
Craddock asked
if the existing schools can accommodate the increase in enroll-
ment that
result from this
project.
Al
'A
Mr. Tucker told her that it is Possible that McIntire School will be re -opened.
However, when fully developed, the project could overcrowd the existing schools by
15%.
At this point Mr. Gloeckner explained that he felt it necessary to disqualify
himself from the discussion of Willoughby at the previous public hearing, but that he is
no longer serving as an expert witness, and he feels that it is permissible that he take
part in this discussion.
Mrs. Craddock asked that Mr. Tucker point out the various land uses on the map.
Mr. Tucker explained where the townhouse units, garden apartments, midrises, com-
mercial area, and active recreation areas would be.
Mr. Leighton speaking for the applicant, stated that the conditions recommended
by the staff seem to be in order.
Mr. Rinehart questioned the 200 units in the midrise section, adjacent to I-64.
Mr. Leighton said that these units are set down from I-64 approximately 250 feet.
They will be used for the elderly, and because of the location, they are not bothered
by the road.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of SP-534 subject to the following conditions:
1. Maintain the proposed density of 5.3 dwelling units per acre (gross);
2. Approval from State Highway Department concerning internal street rights -of -way, and
cross sections;
3. Corps of Engineers review and approval of any development, i.e., residential,
commercial, and streets - within the flood plain limits;
4. This approval is contingent upon the recertification for increased capacity to Moore's
Creek STP;
5. Submit to the Albemarle County Service Authority an estimate by stages, of the capa-
cities that will be expected on an annual basis;
6. Open space and recreation plan to be submitted for approval by the County Department
of Planning indicating recreation equipment and facilities proposed;
7. Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service Authority;
8. This approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's approval;
9. All streets to be constructed with sidewalks;
10. County Attorney's review of any deed restrictions or homeowner's association agree-
ments;
11. No site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading plan for
this property has been approved;
12. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation areas,
nature and bike trails, parking areas, and debris basins shall be disturbed, all
other land shall remain in a natural state;
13. The commercial area shall be limited to 17 acres gross area in Albemarle County;
14. Bike trails are to be developed in keeping with the concept received and accepted by
the Planning Commission under a study entitled "Bikeway Plan for Albemarle County,
Virginia" dated Fall, 1975, prepared by Albemarle County Department of Planning;
15. Present erosion problems to be corrected to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administra-
tor before any further approvals required hereafter are given;
16. All internal roads serving this development are to meet the standards of the Virginia
Department of Highways for inclusion into the Highway System of Virginia;
17. The generalized land use plan, showing the location of the types of single-
/ 7
family and multi -family development and commercial areas and the access to these areas
from the internal road system shall be adhered to. The Land Use Plan referred to is
that described as Exhibit "A", prepared by Environmental Interface and marked "Re-
ceived, 11/26/75" and color coded and signed by John L. Humphrey, Director of Planning.
Discussion:
Mr. Carr asked if this motion included taking out the condition regarding the
reservation of a school site.
Mr. Humphrey stated that this reservation would be in force only until September,
1976, and that the Planning Commission did not necessarily need to include this as part
of the motion.
Mr. Rinehart amended the motion to include an eighteenth condition of approval.
18. Due to the fact that the School Board through resolution stated that no school reser-
vation is warranted, the Planning Commission concurs with their resolution.
Mrs. Craddock stated that she agreed with this condition.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter stated that he would like to bring up a matter that was not on the agenda:
the erosion at the city land fill. He stated that he felt this problem needed to be dealt
with and the erosion problem there corrected.
Mr. Humphrey stated that such agencies as the Health Department had been brought
in to view this condition, but that nothing had been done about it.
Mr. Carr stated that the staff has the support of the Planning Commission to take
the necessary steps to correct this problem.
B.P.O.E. site plan - Route 1421:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the
room.
Mrs. Scala stated that SP-509,for a fraternal lodge, had been approved subject to a
series of conditions, one of them being site plan approval. She said that all conditions
except this one had been met. She stated that the staff recommends approval of the site
plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrances. They have recommended decel
lanes at both entrances;
2. Plat should be recorded to show 25' dedication from centerline of Route 1421. (Mrs.
Scala stated that the site plan for this area shows it as reserved);
3. Health Department or Service Authority approval of sewage disposal system (Mrs. Scala
said that the property is borderline for supporting this, and that the applicant may
extend the line from the city);
4. Grading permit.
Mr. Carr asked if the Site Review Committee had approved this site plan.
Mrs. Scala said "yes."
Mr. Easter reminded the Commission that when the Special Use Permit had bQen
considered, there was much concern over the placement of the building because of th
two private residences there. He said that it appeared that the applicant had done as
much as possible to work with this problem.
Mr. Clinton Kisner, representing the applicant, wondered if Old Route 20 has
enough traffic to warrant a decel lane, since the estimate of the number of cars per
day won't exceed fifty, except one a month. He said that he felt two decel lanes would
encourage more traffic on Route 20. Also they would eliminate two trees.
Mr. Rinehart pointed out to Mr. Kisner that the Planning Commission cannot change
requirements setforth by the Highway Department.
Mrs. Graves stated that it is necessary that the Planning Commission support the
Highway Department, since they usually don't require something that is not needed.
Mr. Kisner questioned the need for the decel lanes.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that when the special permit was reviewed, future expansion
plans were discussed, and that perhaps the decel lanes speak to that expansion.
Mr. Carr said that there is some merit in Mr. Kisner's arguments, and that he is
willing for the applicant to discuss the decel lanes with the Highway Department.
Mr. Rinehart stated that this is a good site plan compared to the schematic site
plan submitted at the time of the special use permit and moved approval.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion. 144)
Discussion:
Mr. Carr said that the Highway Department can determine if the decel lanes are
necessary, and that the Planning Commission will support their decision.
Mr. Kisner asked that the Planning Commission recommend a maximum of one.
Mr. Rinehart said that the Commission does not have the necessary information
to decide what is necessary.
The Commission voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Mr. Gloeckner re-entered the room.
Lucky Seven gasoline pumps site plan - Four Seasons:
Mrs. Scala stated that this had been deferred in order to obtain more information
concerning the Four Seasons commercial area. She said that the minutes of the Planning
Commission do not speak to the commercial area. The master plan for Four Seasons shows
six acres for commercial development. She stated that there was a site plan approved
for the area, following the master plan. Several revisions in uses have occurred
since then. The entire area has been treated as a general commercial area. The staff feels that the site plan can be approved subject to Fire Marshal approval. She
stated that the applicant has a landscape plan to present to Commission, and the plan
shows the pumps to one side of the driveway.
Mrs. Craddock asked if there are houses across from the location.
Mrs. Scala said that houses are across the street on either corner.
Mr. Crafaik showed an artist's drawing of the planting plan for the site, and
presented a petition of 150 signatures supporting this site plan.
Mrs. Craddock inquired if there were other services to be provided at this store
such as oil changing and car washing.
Mr. Crafaik said that only gas will be sold.
Mr. Easter asked if the slope were such that it would permit safe parking.
Mr. Crafaik said that the parking lot is not on a slope.
Mr. Ed Hudson asked the Planning Commission to remember the petition that had
been presented at the previous meeting in opposition. He stated that it is his opinion
that the request is improperly before the Planning Commission since the gas pumps had
not been part of the original site plan.
Mr. Humphrey said that this area had been approved as a commercial area with no
specific uses, giving six acres of B-1 zoning.
Mr. Carr stated that from inception, gas pumps were by right in the B-1 zone.
Mr. Humphrey stated also that in the last three years there has been a trend
to having gas pumps as a accessory to this type of store.
Mr. Rinehart suggested that this is somewhat different from a regular gas station,
but acknowledged that houses do front the proposed pumps.
Mrs. Graves stated that she had supported the commercial area in the Willoughby
PUD since it is away from the residential area that has units for sale.
Mr. Easter stated that where the use may have changed, the law hasn't and that the
applicant seems to be in his legal rights. However, he stated that he does sympathsize
with the home owners in the area.
Mrs. Graves stated that she feels this site will affect home values in the area,
and said that she will vote against the request whether it is legal or not.
Mr. Payne stated that since the area was approved for B-1 zoning, the use is per-
mitted.
Mr. Tinsley asked if the site plan can be conditioned such that there will be no
change in the pumps later.
Mr. Rinehart said that in order to disapprove the site plan, some fault has to be
found with it.
Mr. Payne stated that it can be denied if it is a peril to public safety and the
use of the site can be reviewed.
r Mr. Gaylord asked if this would be a change in the site plan.
Mr. Humphrey said that this is the fourth modification of a previously approv—
site plan.
Mr. Easter suggested to the adjoining property owners that it would be better to
have this sort of gasoline services than a full scale gas station.
Mr. Hudson said that the original gas station faced Rio Road.
Mr. Gaylord suggested that there were enough service stations in the area to serve
the residents of Four Seasons.
Mr. Rinehart said that if this is to be approved, the site plan must show the
traffic flow.
plan. Mr. Tinsley asked if the service station were shown as part of the original site
Mr. Humphrey said that numerous B-1 uses were shown in the master site plan.
Mr. Gloeckner asked how many feet the gas pumps had been moved from the original
site plan.
Mr. Humphrey - "100 feet."
Mrs. Graves said that there is a difference in grade.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that there are now two pumps instead of four.
Mr. Hudson asked if the transporting of the gas to the site had been considered.
Mr. Carr stated that there are several things to consider in the site plan:
1. If B-1 zoning was committed when the 6-acre commercial area was approved;
2. The buyers knew that this area was designated for commercial uses;
3. The gas pumps are a question of judgement.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that under the B-1 zoning granted by the master plan that the
applicant has the rights to the gas pumps. The question is if this is a good site plan.
Mr. Crafaik stated that the gas will be strictly for the convenience of the Four
Seasons residents and that he will comply with any conditions set forth by the Fire
Marshal.
Mr. Rinehart said that he felt that the applicant has the right to do this, but
before he can approve this he wants the applicant to consider the parking area, how
it will be affected by the pumps. He also wants the applicant to employ some sort of
stack space and show how it relates to the existing parking.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Craddock asked if the hours of operation for the gas pumps can be limited
since they are near a residential area.
Mr. Carr stated that this cannot be done.
Mr. Tinsley said that as long as the store is open, gas can be pumped.
Mr. Carr said that the Commission must act, since all the facts have been pre-
sented.
Mr. Rinehart said he wished to either deny the request, or deferit
in order
ecan suto
clear up a few problems. He decided to move for deferral until the applicant
bmit
a site plan on scale of 1"=20' for the portion of the site in question. He said that
he wanted the plan to show how traffic circulation will affect existing traffic and asked
for at least a three -car stack. This stack will show the effect on the driveway and
existing parking.
Mrs. Graves asked that the grade of the property be shown.
Mr. Gloeckner asked that the motion be amended to include the contour lines.
Mr. Rinehart agreed to this and Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Lawrence N. wood Estate Final Plat - 2 lots - Route 743 and 764:
Mrs. Craddock moved action be deferred in order that the applicant or his repre-
sentative could be present.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Paul Raford preliminary plat - west side of Route 627 near Esmont:
Mrs. Scala stated that this plat is for two lots, 6.5 acres and 5 acres on a pro-
posed 25' right-of-way.
She said that the parcel has approximately 25' frontage on Route 627 and is
served by an existing driveway. Mrs. Scala noted that the staff recommends approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Dedication of 25' from centerline of Route 627;
2. Note on the plat: No further subdivision along this easement without Planning Com-
mission approval.
Mr. Payne stated that this property is shown as part of Hathaway, which Mr. St.
John has no interests in.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Rase and Odelle Parker preliminary plat - Route 22 near Cobham:
Mrs. Scala stated that this plat is for two lots, 3.0 acres and 6.83 acres on a
proposed 25' right-of-way. She said that the property is located on an existing 50'
right-of-way off Route 22. She said that the request is for approval of a 25' access
easement to serve the 3-acre lot off the existing 50' right-of-way, which has a gravel
surface. The staff recommends approval subject to these two conditions:
1. Health Department approval of the 3-acre parcel;
2. Note on plat: No further subdivision along this easement without Planning Commission
approval.
Mr. Chamberlain, representing the applicant, said that this is a family matt since the applicant wishes to give her sister the back part of the property. er,
Mr. Easter moved approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions re-
commended by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Curtis and Barbara Amburn final plat - west side of Route 600 east of Rt. 29 N:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a plat of two lots, 3.7 acres and 5.0 acres. A
waiver on frontage on the two lots is requested since neither has sufficient frontage in
the A-1 zone (120 feet). She stated that the staff recommends that the building line on
parcel A-2 be moved back to 150' lot width. The plat should be subject to Virginia
Department of Highways approval of entrances.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended by
the staff.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Work Session and Public Hearings:
Scenic Highway Designation - Article 18:
Mr. Humphrey stated that this was the work session as well as the public hearing
on this Article 18.
Mr. Payne explained the need for section 18-3-5, stating that a scenic highway
may be designated before this article is enacted.
Mrs. Norma Dielasked that this article be enacted and that input from the citizens
be considered.
Mr. Humphrey read the comments received by the Planning Department from Mrs.
Martha Selden and Mrs. Dorothy Speidel (see attached sheets).
asked
Mr. Gloeckner/if the recommendations regarding the signs on scenic highways were
restrictive enough.
Mr. Humphrey stated that signs are structures, so the regulation goes back to
the setback for structures. He stated that with the existing situation, these setbacks
seem fair.
Mrs. Craddock asked the status of securing scenic designation for Route 250.
Mrs. Selden stated that the state would approve this request if all the bill-
boards could be eliminated and if there could be some guarantee regarding zoning
in that area.
on
M
Ti-io,-7" uf us ai�c :i-n designated hip
ar�i worried r1J-,c-u.t the f,,,,+ur(- of 'lie roads.. in
A T 1) etia r oan ' y 'now screel:11,1,-r, parIA.-or-, and
e ty. Icnow cont,I,Ic,-ring 250 ' ,,t
fOT oil 250 West
sce-il. 1-cii but c, I
W.11 t "D r�OSsible.
-P,7 r
L--o e�il i— il"i've, ',,tezzt between
T---4 a d e Cro-Ptf, r 1rc, k- erienced a traffic
r - (� f" 11-1 s e Q 7 r e �3 f or u:-7,o this -,cct-ion
n- C
t _, r r P -1e-,:ic,-ntn-rY school
T,, r) r --I
O
IT- de HiC17- on tae south
T, r. C. i -r 0 'a,
Wi-6(, ar-i n c se in thn number
,
o-. car, a>>e. `'_, ril,_ 1 ^ �< r_:� o_� roa.c .
h, 1.. 1 U c I, C C r C I 1 21 1p d in the --,.rea -),nd
I t i 0 n 1," e Mu S t
anti CA-,� e i's 1 C, V 0' Tn 7�1;
U
to the t'n e: d A. 0n
to-
t of 250 West
U- to S c deb'.
For
Y,)u to e -
she..: now Ttiwth the
for futurF
b, ZA t b a c, t'lle bul 9 -in d
an, be, moved to
i- -frcnt 45 r
a-1 - c
rl
A highw,, that
nn en w p n r o ad n, ess-P -ial and
0 c U!7-pris when the
h-c
Id a t 0 u t e t
n no 2
Wr, s 0,
U t-. to be ins'pected
,,)I V.
do
C. n U r--
C, c or, U -he safety
We propose that
CM alp d C,-,
c our
`0 the co:,-m? crci ally
:id in d
c;r;-
e - t b i-,c au c- e
-L, zc d
-1 1 on -.I.s part
do i: e, on
V e
s- 0�11 r,,) P- d or each
first a. tu th P,
r: 0 r�
+
c- 3ee-p lot
f'rc,,nt, t t',-, I'M
for reasons
on.
n c r, I t
r Y
jlr�, +-A c- c P-5Z
&,vice R4,
M
On -Premise Advertising
We support the principle of PlanninE Commission discretion with
regard to on -premise advertising for est;;zbli.shments fronting on roads
receiving state or loci�l scenic designation. However, we suggest
that more restrictive outside limits be established on such signs than
those included in our present zoning orc' _in,.nce. therefore suggest
the following provisions for the proposed SCE:nic designation amendment,
based on existing attractive uses in our a-wn cocintf and on ordinances
in other communities with which we assume �V e oh,. e ;similar goals:
A.St le: sign location, configuration, design, in,-teria.ls and colors
should, be harmonious with our historic:! +_ - :zc envd r. oriental. setting.
Signs should not visually dominate the :structure to which they are
attached and should be in harmony arch itectur--:l__� r with the surround-
ing structures. Sign materials should be }credo.ninantly wood or
should utili%e open lettering. Plastic and othe.Lr synthetic materials,
interior illumination and reflective s'orfi .oes %iould be discouraged,
and indirect and pan-chanalled lighting,6hould 0.,e encouraged. Appli-
cants for site plan approval should 'subaiit sca-le drawings of any
wall or free standing signs.
B,Sign dimensions and regulations:
l.Manufacturing zones:
a.one free-standing sign per establishment, RFTith one additional
sign when an establishment f%ces onto a second public right of
way. Such sign size shall not exceed 24 squire feet, shall not
exceed 8 feet in height and shall Misplay crly the name of the
concern,
bone wall sign in place of on not to exceed 32 square
feet, with no portion of such sign higher than twenty feet from
ground level or the eave line of the; roof of the main building.
2.Business zones:
a.shopping centers:
l.one .free-standing entr.-.nce sign ;)cr street frontage, except
one additional sign shall be pernitG-ed when street frontage
exceeds 600 linear feet. Such gig size shill not exceed 18
square feet and shall display only the nr,rie of the shopping
t
center. p
2.one mall sign for each individual est,.blisllum-nt, 'which sign
- 2 -
shall not exceed one square foot for each one front linear
Pool r foot of the building, with a maximum area of 50 square feet,
with no portion of such sign higher than twenty feet from
ground level or the eave line of the roof of the main building.
Signs in a shopping center should be in harmony with the archi-
tectural style of the center and with one another.
3-one projecting sign per establishment, except an additional
such sign shall be permitted when establishment faces another
pedestrian walkway. Projecting signs shall not exceed 4
square feet, with no portion of such sign higher than ten
feet from ground level.
Two or more establishments which are designed as a single commer-
cial group, whether on same parcel or not, or under common oitimer-
ship or management, or having common maintenance, parking or the
appearance of one continuous commercial area shall be governed by
shopping center provisions,
b.individual businesses:
l.one free standing sign per establishment per road frontage.
Sign shall not exceed 18 square feet and height shall not
exceed 10 feet.
2.one wall sign in place of one free-standing sign, which sign
shall not exceed 1 square foot for each 1 front linear foot of
the building, with a maximum area of 50 square feet. .in a non -
business zone or non -manufacturing zone wall sign shall not ex-
ceed 20 square feet. No portion of wall signs shall be higher than
twenty feet from ground level or the eave line of the roof of
the main building. _
c.multi-tenant building:
l.free-standing signs shall be combined on one standard, with
one sign per public right of way. Individual signs shall not
exceed 12 square feet, with no portion of such sign higher than
20 feet from ground level or than the eave line of the main
building.
2.one wall sign shell be permitted per .0ta shment and shall
not exceed 12 s�-uare feet insi-�e, with no portion of such sign
higher than 20 feet from -ground level or than the e-,ve line of
,. the mein building.
3-Subdivisions:
On sign shall be permitted ct an entrance to a subdivision. Sign
shall not exceed 12 Oquare #�ee�/or 10 feet in height above ground level
Mr. Humphrey stated that if the Planning Commission could support the concept
of the staff including the input from citizens, the staff would re -draft the article
and bring it back to the Comm'
for final approval.
Mr. Tucker noted that subdivision signs are exempt from setback.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the concept, and asked that final draft include
size of signs, access, etc., and that the Planning Commission approve the final.
Mr. Payne read Article 18 and explained each sectionto
the Commission the and
the
on
public. He pointed out that it is the State Highway Department
Outdoor Recreation that designate highways as scenic.
Mr. Easter moved deferral of action until the concept could be finalized.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Rinehart followed up the discussion suggesting that the biggest growth that
might occur in the County is the tourist industry. He noted that all tools should be
employed by the County to make it as attractive as possible. He fully supported the
idea of scenic highways in the County, since this would be one way that the county
could be made more attractive.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter asked how long candidates for political office were permitted to leave
posters after election day.
igns had to be removed ten days after election
Mr. Humphrey stated that these s
day.
Mr. Easter said that since so many signs have not been removed, he wanted the
Planning Commission to adopt a resolution to petition the Board of Supervisors to en-
force the law regarding the removal of political signs from the County.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
RPN work session and public hearing:
Mr. Humphrey stated that one of the major differences between this and
the
PUD deals with the commercial area.
Mr. Bill Clover made suggestions to the Commission regarding height regulations
in this zone, suggesting that structures be no more than ten stories.
Mr. Rinehart said that he has mixed emotions about 10-story buildings in rural
Albemarle, and suggested that the maximum height be 65 feet. (19-7-1).
Mrs. Graves stated that she was concerned about an RPN in 10 acres.
Mr. Humphrey stated that some people had suggested that it be 5-acres.
Mrs. Graves stated that the County cannot require a developer to use the RPN
designation.
Mr. Payne stated that this Article would encourage it's use, since it is a
cheaper way to develop property. This enables working on the basis of point density.
Mr. Payne stated that some of the terms under section 19-3-1 need defining, but
that this could be done later.
Mrs. Graves expressed desire to address the commercial area.
zoning. Mr. Payne explained that this will be "Convenience commercial" rather than B-1
Mrs. Craddock was concerned about fire houses in the RPN.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the staff does not view fire houses as a nuisnace,
rather they are a need.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the concept and the wording of the ordinance (
Article 19) subject to the additions regarding height and subject to inclusion at a
later date of the definitions.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
(Attached is a copy of Article 19 as approved by the Commission).
The work session and the public hearing on the PUB was deferred.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
®reary
9
Planning Commission adopted 12/9/75
PROPOSED ARTICLE 19
-..,j ESIDENTIAL PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD, RPN
19-1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
"19-2
The Residential Planned Neighborhood District is intended to encourage
and provide for a variety and flexibility in land development for
.residential purposes, and uses ancillary thereto, that are neceWry
&o.meet those changes in technology and demand which will be consistent
--with the best interest of the county and the area in which.it is located.
"it it-' also the intent of this district to promote economical and efficient
.--land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious
ysical development, creative design and a better environment.
'APPLICATION OF ARTICLE
a9-2-1 —The Board of -Supervisors -may authorize the development of residential
planned neighborhoods within the Agricultural A-1, Residential Suburban
4tS 1,-and Limited Residential R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts created by
--this ordinance, after notice and hearing as required by Section 15.1-431
f the Code of Virqinia. Such authorization shall be given only to
.io.land having a minimum acreage of ten acres under common ownership or control.
19 2-2 Additional land area may EmbseTiently he added to an appro��Pd residential
planned neighborhood if it adjoins or forms a logical addition to the
,existing planned neighborhood. The procedure for an addition shall be
the same as if an original application -were filed, and all requirements
.of this section shall apply except the minimum acreage requirement as
=specified above.
19-2-3 The applicant shall file an application for rezoning with the Zoning
Administrator and shall furnish with his application twelve copies of a
preliminary plan showing the proposed general location of the various
types of specific land uses, the proposed densities of population in residential
.areas, the net and gross residential density of the neighborhood, a street
plan, public utility plan, storm drainage plan, and a plan showing the
location of the active and passive recreation spaces, parks, schools and
other public or community uses.
19-2-4 The Staff of the County shall review the application for rezoning and
the preliminary plan as submitted by the applicant and evaluate the pro-
posed project and present its recommendations for necessary utilities
and other facilities to protect other uses within the area. No approval
shall be given of any such rezoning and preliminary plan until the
recommendations of the Staff have been considered by the Planning
Commission after studying the characteristics of the area in which the
proposed planned neighborhood is to be located.
M
Following the recommendations of the Planning Canmission and the
,approval of the Board of Supervisors of the rezoning and preliminary
plan, the applicant shall submit a final site development plan in
3ceeping with the approved preliminary plan and in conformance with
;_article 17 of this ordinance and with the Albemarle County Land
he minimum area to be shown
Subdivision and Development Ordinance. T
;;,on any final site plan or subdivision plat shall be not less than two
,�jacres of the land originally submitted on the preliminary plan.
-hereafter, no modification may be made in the final plan except by
--pan amended final plan submitted for approval.
1g_2_6 Notwithstandin an rovision of law to the contrary, Article 17 of
this Ordinance and the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development
Ordinance shall apply to any residential planned neighborhood developed
pursuant to this Article.
'19 3 �JSES PERMITTED
1g-3-1 --There shall be no special exceptions permitted in the RPN Districts.
The following uses shall be permitted by right.
E
=;(a) ,_Dwelling units in detached, semi-detached, attached and multi-
n _..
:storeyed structures, or any combination thereof;
_fib) Institutions to the extent that they are designed and intended to
serve the residents of the RPN District;
e4c) , COKM ercial convenience -facilities designed and intended to serve
he;residents_of the RPN District, subject to Section 19-4-3 of this ordinance.
_.id) Educational institutions;
Vie) `Fire and rescue stations;
Xf)-_Public utilities: poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters,
:and related or similar facilities; water sewer and gas distribution lines;
-i(gl may -care centers;
. h) - Mome-- occupation, Class A;
`.) community- centers;
-' 9 Parks and recreation facilities;
_k) .Accessory uses and buildings .
-_MENSITY PERMITTED
,=Except as otherwise provided by law, the maximum residential density shall
::not -exceed the following
number of units per gross acre for each type
:of District:
-,,(a)-RPN-Al: 0.5 dwelling units per gross acre;
'(b) RPN-RS1: 1..0 dwelling units per gross acre;
(c) RPN-R1: 5.3 dwelling units per gross acre;
9
�(d) RPN-R2: 8.4 dwelling units per gross acre;
r
(e) RPN-R3: 34.3 dwelling units per gross acre.
a9-4-2 Nothing herein shall be construed to supersede or impair the application
of any provision of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision, and Development
---Ordinance.
_:19-4-3 Commercial uses, including parking shall be permitted in developments
greater than 50 acres and shall be limited to 1.5% of the gross area:
of development It is the intent that commercial areas not be larger
than required by the development.
9-4-4 For purposes of this section, the term "gross acre" shall be construed to _
include the entire area within the residential planned neighborhood, whether.
-br not the same shall be developed in any particular manner. _
19-5 -AREA REGULATIONS
_E19-5-1 No more than seventy-five (75) percent of the site shall be developed with
''lots, buildings, streets, and off-street parking.
19-6 SETBACK, YARD, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURF, REGULATIONS
19-6-1 'There shall be no minimum setback requirement within the RPN District;
except that all structures to be located on the outer perimeter of such
-district shall conform to the setback of the adjoining district and
=—,provided further that sezAack lines on roads, streets of highways, in
the Virginia State System of Highways, either existing or proposed shall
be determined by the Planning Commission.
_29-6-2 The location of all structures shall be shown on the final plans.
Accessory buidlings to the overall development and their aggregate
_..area shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the area designated
=-as open space.
39 7 -4MIGHT REGULATION
A�9-7-1 No building shall be greater than 65 feet in height.
19-8 CORNER LOT REGULATION
39-8-1 The yard on the side facing the side street shall be thirty (30) feet
4or-.more from the street right-of-way for both main and accessory structures.
]:�9-9 14INIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS
19-9-1 Minimum off-street parking requirements shall be as set forth in Article
-_22-7 of this ordinance.
39 10 SIGN REGULATIONS
- 9-10-1 Sign regulation shall be as set forth in Article 15A of this ordinance.
December 16, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, December 16,
1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider
a series of site plans and subdivision plats.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Jack Rinehart; and Mr. Lloyd Wood,
ex-Officio. Absent were Messrs. Peter Easter and Clifton McClure and Mrs. Ellen Craddock.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Buck Mountain final plat - Routes 601 and 671:
Mrs. Scala stated that this plat would have to be acted on at a later date.
Mr. Barksdale moved action be deferred.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ZMP-338. Richard Cogan:
Mr. Tucker said that the applicant is requesting withdrawal without prejudice.
Mr. -Barksdale moved the withdrawal be accepted.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
Newtown preliminary plat - Route 690:
Mrs. Scala informed the Commission that this is a plat of 6 lots with an average
size of 1 acre - minimum size of 40,000 square feet. There is a central well, which has
been approved through a special use permit, and each lot has its own septic system.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. County Attorney approval of Public Service Corporation and documents as required by
SP-523 for central well;
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrances;
3. Grading permit to be obtained prior to final approval;
4. Shared entrances every two lots (the plat is currently in error, showing the entrances
at the back of the lots);
5. Health Department approval of lots for individual septic systems.
Mr. Gloeckner asked that the staff remind the applicant that each lot has to be at
least 130 feet wide.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended by
the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
Ivy Farm - preliminary plat and final plat for Phase I:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by
leaving the room.
Mrs. Scala said that the entire tract is now platted in preliminary form: 53 trac
Plus acreage previously sold (Locher, Echols, and Goodell). The average lot size is 7.8
acres and minimum lot size is 2.2 acres. The final plat for phase one contains 19 tracts,
with an average lot size of 5.7 acres and a minimum lot size of 2.2. acres.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Roads constructed to state standards based on traffic generated by lots as shown on
preliminary plan;
2. Performance bond to be held by the County until the State accepts the roads;
3. Drainage easements to be approved by County Engineer and Virginia Department of High-
ways;
4. A note on the plat: No further subdivision along these roads without Planning Commis-
sion approval.
Mrs. Scala stated that this was brought back because of a misunderstanding between
the applicant and the intent of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Scala further noted that
the staff has met with the highway department and that the roads will be based on the pre-
liminary plat.
(At this point Mr. Rinehart came into the meeting).
Basically, the preliminary just shows how the land will be subdivided, since it
had been the previous assumption that the lots would be 2-acre lots.
Mr. Carr asked who would be responsible for bringing the roads up to standards if
any of the larger parcels were subdivided. He also asked if the County could further
deny further 2-acre subdivisions.
Mr. Hill explained that the preliminary had been presented in order that the Com-
mission could see what the development would look like, rather than assuming the 2-acre
subdivision.
Mr. Hill said that the developer is trying to have the average lot size 5-acres.
Mr. Carr said that his problem is that the County might put itself in a situation
it cannot handle concerning the road.
Mr. Rinehart asked the capacity of the roads.
Mr. Hill said over 730 cars per day.
Mr. Carr asked how may dwelling units would be supported by 780 cars.
Mr. Tucker said around 100.
Mr. Hill said that if the owner of any large parcel decides to subdivide his acreage,
he should be required to bring the road that meets his road up to state standards -
he said that this requirement is a "must" in many other localities. He stated that
the preliminary was brought to the Commission in good faith.
Mr. Carr said that he felt more time was needed in order to investigate the pro-
blem of who would upgrade the roads if further subdivision occurred.
Mr. Hill said that if this is the case, he will abide by the original approval and
let the County assume 2-acre subdivision.
Mr. Carr then suggested putting the buyers on notice that no lots can be further
subdivided. He asked that this put
doninthe
theefaturetriHeisaid thatsince
hetalsois lneedslbime
to guess what each buyer will want
to understand all the ramifications of the plan.
Mr. Hill again insisted that he will just abide by the original approval.
Mr. Rinehart then suggested that deed restrictions be placed on enough of the lots
to settle the problem.
Mr. Hill said that in order to have a strong community organization, it is much
better to leave the deed restrictions to the purchasers.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the staff had asked Mr. Hill to prepare this
preliminary plat. The Virginia Department of Highways had been receptive to this plat
with the highway department - i.e., the staff's decision is based
and the staff concurs
on the decision of the highway department.
Mr. Carr said that this is not logical, that there is something impractical about
this.
Mr. Rinehart asked if any property owner would have any recourse against the county
if at some future date the county does not upgrade the roads in case of further subdivision.
Mr. Payne said that in the hypothetical situation presentede by Mr. Rinehart, this
property owner would not have any recourse against the county• upgrade existing roads a
has not been the policy of this county to have the developer
if
further subdivision occurs.
Mr. Hill insisted that the road will meet county standards.
Mrs. Graves suggested that this will be just another overloaded road in twenty
years.
Mr. Payne said that this is ultimately the problem of the highway department. The
subdivision ordinance is satisfied when the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion is satisfied.
re up to standard for the preliminary plat that
Mrs. Scala said that the roads a
was presented.
Mr. Tucker said that the 780 vehicles mentioned earlier will come from 118 dwelling
units.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion.
The vote was 3-2 in favor of the motion, with Messrs. Carr and Rinehart voting
against the motion.
Mr. Carr said that the problem then lies with the Virginia Department of
roads in this subdivision are currently one of the best roads
Highways, even though the roads may later be inadequate. However, he did note that these
in the county.
Mr. Hill said that when the convenants are drawn up, he will bring them back to
the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner re-entered the room.
Deeridge final plat - Route 795:
Mrs. Scala stated that this plat of 15 lots has an average lot size of 2-acres.
The lots are being developed in federally subsidized houses. The staff noted a poor soil
survey in the area, though Health Department approval has been given.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Grading permit must be obtained (the applicant is in the process of securing this
permit);
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrances;
3. Preliminary approval was given with strong suggestion of staggered setbacks and removal
of as few trees as necessary.
Mrs. Scala pointed out that an easement was shown across the pipestem to
serve lot 5 on the preliminary plat. This had to be omitted since the owner of the `4
pipestem would not permit it.
staff. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended by the
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Claude J. Bailey, Jr., final plat - Route 824:
Mrs. Scala said this one 2-acre parcel is on a proposed 25' access easement, and
that there is an existing house on the parcel.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. No further subdivision along this easement without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the one condition.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Tinsley, carried unanimously.
Preston Stallings final plat - Chris Greene Lake Road:
The staff said that the average lot size of these eight lots is 2.2 acres.
The preliminary plat had been approved by the Board in 1972plat for the first
nine lots was signed in 1972. . The final
i I Z-
N
Mrs. Scala said that the highway department is trying to determine if the road
is built to state standards. A bond is being held by the county on the portion of the
road serving the first lots.
Approval subject to the following conditions was recommended by
the staff:
1. If Chris Greene Lake Road is not to state standards, proper road bonds will have to be
posted to insure acceptance into the state system;
2. Shared entrances every two lots; Y royal;
3. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval;
4. A recommendation that there be underground service if possible.
The Commission decided to change condition #1 to read:
1. Chris Greene Lake Road to be built to state standards, including proper road bonding
posted to insure acceptance into the state system.
Mr. Tucker said that there is an existing cable
itere whthic would
rst permit underground
service though it had been an oversight not require
The Commission changed condition #4 to read:
4. Underground service.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to conditions 2 and 3 as recommend-
ed by the staff and the revised versions of conditions 1 and 4.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Lake Hills final plat - Route 743:
lts east
de
Mrs. Scala said that this subdivision plat of12 ith inimumllotosizedofn2.5eacres.S1The
of Route 743. The average lot size is 4c
res preliminary plat was approved in July, 1975.
Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant requests 150' rear setback from the reservior
on lot 4, rather than the normal setback, because there is a definite building site.
She said that she walked over the props defini-
erty and confirms that the building site i
approval, though,
tely closer than the required setback. The prelim
icantadoesry onottwish to n of rotate lots 10 and
was 200' from the water's edge. Also, the app The plat shows lot 11 to enter
11 as suggested in preliminary approval due to topography.
off the new road and lot 10 will enter off Route 743. Mrs. Scala stated that the staff
finds this to be acceptable.
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommends approval subject to the following
changes:
1. Engineering approval; are recommending a decel lane for this
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval (they
subdivision as well as a decel lane for Lmust be Lane);
e
3. Provision for maintenance of common area must be provided for in deed (to be checked
by County Attorney);
4. Road bonds for proposed state road;
5. Grading permit.
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that it is the opinion of the staff that to require
this applicant to provide a decel lane for Lochridge Lane is unreasonable since this woul(
be for property not owned by this applicant. The Commission agreed with the staff.
Mrs. Graves asked that the sixth condition be "No further subdivision withou
Planning Commission approval."
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended by
the staff, except for the decel lane for Lochridge Lane, and added the condition suggested
by Mrs. Graves, regarding no further subdivision.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
White Oak Park final plat - south side of Route 708:
This plat of 10 lots has an average size of 3.8 acres and a minimum size of 2.0
acres. The preliminary plat was approved by the Commission in 1974 and by the Board, due
to the restricted road, in January of 1975.
Mrs. Scala stated that since the preliminary approval has expired, road approval is no longer good. The applicant will have to build state rthe restricted
oad or restricted
road under new standards.
tions:
Mrs. Scala noted that the staff recommends approval subject to the following condi-
1. Restricted road will have to be re -approved by Board of Supervisors
cepted by the Virginia Department of Highways); (unless it is ac-
2. Grading permit for road;
3. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended by
the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
Totier Hills preliminary plat - Route 20 South:
This subdivision of 26 lots has an average of 2.3 acres per lot with a minimum
lot size of 2.0 acres. Five of these lots fronting Route 626 received final approval last
month. The grading permit has been obtained.
The staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Lots 7 and 26 should enter off Fieldcrest Drive rather than Route 20;
2. Road bonds for the proposed state road.
Mr. Morris Foster explained the plat, stating that the 16.84 acres on the creek
will be used agriculturally only - perhaps for a cron crop and the 10 acre parcel is
designated for a church.
Mr.
Rinehart
moved approval subject to the conditions above.
Mr.
Barksdale
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Virginia Plotnick final plat - Intersection of Routes 719 and 717:
Mrs. Scala said that this plat of six 2-acre lots shows shared entrances between
lots 4 and 5. The Site Review Committee expressed feelings that shared entrances were not
essential on Route 717.
The one condition of approval recommended by the staff is:
1. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval.
staff.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the plat subject to the condition suggested by the
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Badger-Powhatan additional parking site plan - Route 29 North:
Mrs. Scala noted for the Commission that parking space is now rented from an adja-
cent owner.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Grading permit;
2. Parking spaces should be marked on site;
3. Engineering approval of parking surface;
Mrs. Graves told the representative of Badger-Powhatan that more screening than the
four boxwoods shown should be required.
Mr. Tinsley asked if the plan can be approved with the condition that it is limited
to this ownership and have a terraced parking lot on the back.
Mr. Tucker told him that this is not possible.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff plus the following condition:
4. Landscaping as approved by the staff to break up the visible mass of the parking lot
to give linear screening as seen from the north and the south.
Mr. Gloeckner amended the motion to include the 5th condition:
5. Engineering approval of the drainage facilities.
Mr. Rinehart accepted the additional condition, and Mr. Gloeckner seconded the
motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mayo Motors use cars site plan - Route 250 East:
The staff report stated that the existing sewer system is adequate for the facility.
Conditions of approval recommended were:
1. Grading permit is needed;
2. Engineering and Service Authority approval of water line connection.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
staff, plus a third condition that "no permanent structure be permitted without Planning
Commission approval."
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried by a vote of 5-1, with Mrs. Graves
voting against the motion.
Real Estate III addition site plan - Route 29 North:
room. Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the
Mrs. Scala stated that the Virginia Department of Highways is still trying to
decide their recommendations.
The staff recommends approval subject to (1) parking spaces being marked on the
site; and (2) subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval.
Mr. Rinehart suggested moving one of the parking spaces. He felt this should be
done by eliminating space #1 and putting this space by #28, extending spaces 8-1 in order
to have 24' backup space.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of the
staff and the suggestion made by Mr. Rinehart concerning the parking spaces.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
(Mr. Gloeckner re-entered the room.)
Grace Baptist Church site plan - Route 631:
Mrs. Scala stated that a grading permit has been obtained and that the only condi-
tion of approval .recommended by the staff is approval by the Virginia Department of
Highways.
Dr. Stevenson asked if the use has really already been approved since the property
was graded approximately four months prior to the meeting and a sign for the church has
been up for six months.
Mr. Carr explained that a property owner can first apply for a grading permit and
then present the site plan to the County.
Mr. Stevenson said that it seemed he was commenting on something that has already
been done, but that he does feel it to be an improper place for a church.
Mr. Carr explained that the zoning for the property does permit a church by right.
Mrs. Graves voiced concern that grading permits can be obtained before a sitr
plan is presented.
en
il
he
Mr. Stevenson stated that this has teimesao rtheuweekras much a nuisancesasthe
traffic that will be generated at certain
traffic from a supermarket would be.
1975 site plans for the A-1 zone were not
Mrs. Scala said that until August of
seen by the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested an additional condition that plans for cutting any more
ission.
trees be brought back to the CommMr. Gloeckner
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the condition recommended by
and the condition recommended by the staff.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m-
L
N